“There are no national peoples of God now and no national covenants. All those expired with the death of Christ and, as the Westminster Divines said, with “the state of that people” (WCF 19.4). This is why theonomy (i.e., the abiding validity of the judicial laws in exhaustive detail) is a non-starter for anyone who affirms the Westminster Standards (or who would be Reformed).”
R. Scott Idiot
R2K Fan Boy
1.) Pssst… Scott … Dude … Did you forget that the Westminster standards also included a reality called “the general equity?” If you’re going to quote the WCF Scott you might not want to quote it deceptively;
19:4. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, FURTHER THAN THE GENERAL EQUITY THEREOF MAY REQUIRE.
2.) Next, if anyone is so jejune so as to believe that Theonomy is a non starter for anyone Reformed I would advise them to get a copy of Martin Foulner’s little book, “Theonomy and the Westminster Confession.” Clark is just in magnificent error (but what’s new) when he says that “theonomy is a non-starter for anyone who affirms the WCF.” Foulner demonstrates that in his book with a series of quotations proving that many of the Westminster Divines would have been theonomy friendly.
3.) Does Scott realize that it was a bunch of 1648 Westminsterians who signed the “Solemn League and Covenant for Reformation and Defence of Religion, the Honor and Happiness of the King, and the Safety of the Three Kingdoms, of Scotland, England, and Ireland.” These original Confessionalists didn’t interpret this document the way the interloper Clark is interpreting it.
If we lived in a sane world during a sane epoch the man would be stripped of his credentials.
